Finding the Words to Express their Thoughts (engaging in reader-based prose)

A third area of writing that students frequently perceived to be challenging was finding the words to express their thoughts and engaging in reader-based prose. Amelia noted how she struggled “when I start a sentence” and how “putting the right words down” was most

challenging for her. In reviewing her post-test, Marcela also realized that one of the sentences she had written “ . . . didn’t make sense” and she remarked, “I should have written it (the

sentence) in a different way. Leave the thing about the earthquake and change ‘the story will tell me.’ ” Thus, Marcela similarly pointed to how finding the right language to express her thoughts could be difficult.

68

Although students described finding the words to express their thoughts as an area of writing that proved to be challenging, their realization of this also showed that students were making progress in moving from writer-based to reader based-prose. Sophie conveyed this best when she explained:

I think the body paragraphs were harder for me because even though I knew what to do, I still had trouble understanding it in a way that I would understand it. I wanted it to make sense. If let’s say I read that and it didn’t make sense to me, I’d be like oh, it’s not going to make sense to another person. So I would try to chunk it down or add words to make it make sense.

Sophie’s desire to find the right words to express her thoughts and to write a paragraph that would “make sense” demonstrates that she was developing both empathy for her reader and detachment from her writing, two qualities that have long been noted in the research literature as characteristics of more experienced writers (Perl, 1980; Blau, 1987).

Finally, as students described the challenges they encountered in translating their ideas to words, they indicated that explicit instruction in academic language had helped them at times to overcome these challenges. Specifically, students pointed to sentence frames and models of writing, both provided through the Pathway Project intervention, as beneficial supports to their writing development. For instance, Allison conveyed how “Mrs. Cruz has a poster in her class with lots of words- like ‘to honor,’ ‘to pay tribute to’ . . .” and she explained that this was a resource she frequently turned to that helped her to frame her thoughts. However, while students had been provided with some valuable tools to assist them in finding the words to express their thoughts, as reflected in our analysis of students’ pre and post-tests, students nevertheless

perceived this to be an area of writing that was challenging and in which they were continuing to develop.

69 Discussion

In their totality, our findings reveal that students developed as writers in a number of significant ways during their participation in the Pathway Project. Differences in students’ performance at the pre and the post-test demonstrated that students had experienced overall growth in their writing in three general areas: 1. the structure and organization of ideas; 2. the integration and use of textual evidence; and 3. the depth of commentary and development of ideas. Our analysis of interviews with students provided additional insight into students’ writing development and students described their ability to engage in specific writing practices valued within their academic writing context. These practices included: 1. supporting ideas with evidence from the text; 2. writing introductions with hooks, TAGS, and claims; and 3.

identifying themes within a text and creating theme statements. Thus, across both sets of data (students’ pre and post-tests and students’ interviews) there was an abundance of evidence that indicated students had learned the norms of participation when writing within the genre of the academic essay and that they were moving towards becoming legitimate participants within their ELA writing communities. In addition, students demonstrated that they were acquiring the declarative, procedural, and conditional knowledge needed to write at a proficient level and that they were transitioning from knowledge-telling to engaging in the more complex act of

knowledge-transformation.

However, students’ demonstration of overall growth in their writing development, was tempered by the fact that they didn’t always execute the writing moves they had learned with competency; there were definite areas of writing in which students still had room to grow. Three production processes- 1. conceptualization, the understanding of the writing task; 2. ideation, the formulation of content to write about based on the reading and, 3. translation, the taking of this

70

content and turning it into written comprehensible sentences- provided a useful lens for unpacking the difficulties that students were having in their writing. An analysis of students’ post-tests revealed that students were still struggling to fully conceptualize the writing task and select the kinds of evidence that might best support their claim. Students were also inconsistent in their ideation of content that contributed to new, meaningful interpretations of the text, and their incomplete translation of ideas into words on the page resulted in moments of disconnect and disruption in their writing. Students conveyed similar perceptions of the difficulties they faced in writing as they described the following three areas of writing as particularly challenging for them: 1. providing commentary on the text; 2. pulling relevant evidence from the text; and 3. finding the words to express their thoughts. Students realized that each of these areas of writing required a nuanced, context-dependent type of conditional knowledge that they were still in the process of developing. Additional practice and supports were needed to help students fully move from writer-based to reader-based prose and from knowledge-telling to knowledge-

transformation.

Implications for Future Research and Writing Instruction

Finally, although our case study is limited in that it analyzes the writing development of sixteen students within the singular context of a writing intervention that focused on one genre of academic writing, we nevertheless believe it has important implications that can inform future research and writing instruction. First, our study points to how the use of both the cognitive and sociocultural perspectives can lead to a more complete understanding of the processes involved in writing development. Both perspectives were essential to illuminating both the ways in which students’ writing did (and did not) develop over time, and the kinds of targeted instructional supports that students perceived to foster their writing growth.

71

Second, our findings point to the importance of using pedagogical strategies in the classroom that cultivate developing writers’ declarative and procedural knowledge. Although some scholars who favor a less explicit, more constructivist approach might view instructional methods, such as the use of sentence frames or the modeling of the elements one might include in an introduction, as being overly prescriptive (see Harris, 2018), we found these pedagogical strategies to be critical in promoting the writing growth of the sixteen students in our study. While a balanced approach towards using these types of strategies is necessary, students consistently reported that practices that made visible to them the moves of experienced writers boosted their confidence because they had been given a starting place and tools for approaching the writing task. The cultivation of this “will” and feelings of self-efficacy was essential if students were to also maintain the stamina to become experienced writers themselves and move towards writing proficiency.

Third, our research indicates that a possible avenue for future research is to investigate the types of pedagogical supports that are most effective in the development of students’ conditional knowledge. Although students pointed to a number of supports that were critical to cultivating their declarative and procedural knowledge and that helped to apprentice them into normative practices of experienced writers, there was a notable absence in students’ reporting of strategies that helped them to foster conditional knowledge. Given that developing commentary and constructing reader-based prose posed significant challenges to students in this study, we propose that more research is needed to explore those strategies that make visible to students their own writing moves and that move them towards knowledge-transformation.

72

Pre-Test Post-Test

What I know about the article “The Earth is Cruel” sometimes the rains fall and will not stop. Sometimes the skies turn barren and will not rain. Earth all the moment has the power and you can’t do anything about. Sometimes, the earth is cruel, and can take your live, with tornadoes, storms, earthquake, tsunamis, etc. This is part of are history we cannot change. After this we can only accept that as part of bargain called life. And when it is your turn to deal with it you do. The people only accept this and rebuild their lives.

Why should we risk our own life to save someone that we don’t know? The article “The Man in the Water” by Roger Rosenblatt is an example of how a normal man can become a hero not because he has super powers, but instead because he has a big heart that tells him to risk his life for the life of someone that he has never seen before. The article points out how a man risked his life to save people from the destruction that was left after an airplane crashed into the water. The article “The Man in the Water,” tries to honor this man that should be remembered for his actions and for his big heart. At the beginning of the article it describes the tragedy, were and when happen, how many people died and survive. Then the article insists with the incredible actions of this man that normal people can be a hero. This tragedy would not be remembered by the dead; instead it would be remembered by the lives that were saved.

Figure 2.1. Emilio’s growth from pre to post-test in the area of writing introductions with hooks, TAGS, and claims

73

Pre-Test Post-Test

In this article, the man in the water was a man risking his life to save others life. It happened on January 13th_{, 1982. This man was boarding Air}

Florida flight 90. Later flight 90 plowed into the 14th street bridge in Washington D.C. But then that plane crash killed 4 motorists and 74 passengers. Only 6 survived. Then the plane plunged into the Potomac River. This concludes that the man in the water was a brave hero.

In the article “Sometimes the Earth is Cruel,” the author describes natural disasters and tries to explain how the earth is cruel. In the article it states, “Sometimes the land rattles and heaves and splits itself into two.” The author’s language is very deep as he describes how the earthquake that struck Haiti was the biggest natural disaster they ever had. But that didn’t stop them. The people in Haiti rebuilt their homes and went on. No

earthquake could stop them. The author’s purpose was to inspire people to keep going and not to give up.

74

Pre-Test Post-Test

“Sometimes the Earth is Cruel” is an article based on how sometimes “mother earth,” as some people call it, is very disasterous. The article states, “Bad enough, Haiti is wretchedly poor.” This means that Haiti has no money and the earth violently wrecks havoc upon the city. I think that Haiti shouldn’t have had to endure such anger from the earth because what did the Haitians do?

In “The Man in the Water,” nature is described as a dangerous, man-killing phenomenon and the man in the water is the hero fighting it. The article proves this by stating that, “For its part, nature cared nothing about the five passengers. Our man, on the other hand, cared totally. So the timeless battle commenced in the Potomac.” This means that the man was trying to fight nature in a sense. The man in the water died, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that he lost the fight. The man knew he was going to die, but it didn’t stop him from saving the other passengers.

Figure 2.3. Anthony’s growth from pre to post-test in the area of writing commentary

75 Table 2.1

Students’ pre and post-test scores

Student ID Pre-Test Score Post-Test Score Pre to Post Difference Amelia 5 4 4 0 Julia 3 6 +3 Mateo 3 4 +1 Marcela 4 5 +1 Sophie 6 8 +2 David 4 5 +1 Emilio 6 8 +2 Jasmine 5 6 +1 Leo 3 8 +5 Allison 5 7 +2 Anthony 4 7 +3 Cristina 2 6 +4 Bruno 2 7 +5 Luciana 3 5 +2 Jack 3 6 +3 Olivia 4 6 2 Median 4 6 2 Average 4.06 6.13 2.31

76 Chapter 3 (Study 3) Leo’s Journey:

A Case Study of a Middle School English Learner’s Development of Positive Writerly Identity

Inside Mrs. Cruz’s Classroom: Beginning with the End in Mind

It’s a Friday afternoon in mid May, only a few weeks before 8th grade promotion. Today, Mrs. Cruz’s10 class, usually full of giggles, banter, and the chitter chatter of voices in anticipation of the approaching weekend, is hushed and quiet. For the past year, Mrs. Cruz and her students have participated in Project X, an academic literacy intervention funded by the U.S. Department of Education’s Investment in Innovation (i3) grant. Project X emphasizes a cognitive strategies approach to reading and writing instruction, with the aim of developing English learners’

academic literacy in order to help them succeed in advanced educational settings (Author, 2007). Today is day two of Project X’s posttest, an on-demand writing task in which students are asked to write an analytical essay responding to Roger Rosenblatt’s article, “The Man in the Water.”

From my position in the back of the room, I watch as the students engage with the text and writing prompt; the scratch of pens on paper and the rustle of an occasional flip of a page are the only sounds in the room. Leo, one of the many English learners in Mrs. Cruz’s class, stares down thoughtfully at the page before him, his lips silently mouthing words as he reads his essay. Watching Leo absorbed in his work, my curiosity gets the best of me; I approach him, eager to take a peek at his progress on his essay. However, as I move closer to his desk, Leo looks up at me and meets my gaze with a stern expression. He guards his work with one arm and then holds the other hand, palm facing outward, signaling me to stop. “Mrs. Z, you can’t help me,” he

10 _{Pseudonyms have been used for all participants with the exception of the authors. Moreover,} because the first author conducted the case study with the advice and support from the second author, the Principal Investigator of Project X, the pronoun “I” is used for the first author in the article.

77

asserts. “This is a test. I have to do it on my own.” Leo’s words cause me to halt in my tracks; I turn sheepishly around, and retreat to my desk. As I contemplate Leo’s statement of desired independence, I realize that he has reached a crucial moment in his journey of becoming a writer. Leo knows that he does not need my assistance, and he knows both what to do and how to do it. This posttest is his time to prove he is a capable writer both to himself and to others.

Back in September, Leo was only able to muster writing a few lines in response to Project X’s pretest prompt; he also clearly lacked confidence in his skills, writing in a self-assessment for Mrs. Cruz’s class at the end of the first trimester, that he deserved an “F,” had learned “nothing,” and that “everything” in the class had been challenging for him. Now, eight months later, I watch Leo furiously scribbling on the page, engrossed in the writing task at hand and insistent that he has the skills to be successful on his own. As I reflect on his journey from a novice to a more experienced writer, I wonder . . . What caused such a remarkable transformation in Leo? How was he able to achieve such incredible growth over the course of a single year?

Introduction

The purpose of this study is to explore the development of positive writerly identity in Leo, an English learner (EL) initially positioned as “struggling” and “underachieving,” who became seen as a competent writer and an active contributor within the context of his 8th grade English Language Arts (ELA) classroom community. As an EL, Leo represents a heterogeneous group of language-minority students whose varied linguistic, cultural, and social resources reflect their diverse ethnic backgrounds, socioeconomic status, and prior schooling experiences (Kibler, Valdés, & Walqui, 2014; Matsuda, Ortmeier-Hooper, & You, 2006). For these students, inequitable opportunities to learn often result in inequitable outcomes. The teaching of basic skills at the expense of access to challenging interpretive and analytic work (Harklau, 1994;

78

Wong Fillmore, 2014), along with inadequate teacher preparation (Coady, Harper, & De Jong, 2016) and inconsistencies in program implementation (Gold & Maxwell-Jolly, 2008) limit the types of instruction available to EL students allowing them to develop positive writerly

identities. At the middle and high school levels, ELs experience disproportionately high attrition rates (Olsen, 2010) and the positioning of ELs as “underachieving,” “at risk,” and “suffering from the gap” too often becomes the dominant narrative (Sailors, Martinez, Davis, Goatley, & Willis, 2017). In analyzing the positive writerly identity development of Leo, this article hopes to disrupt this dominant narrative and demonstrate how equitable opportunities to learn can be created for ELs in the ELA classroom.

The term positive identity development is used to refer to young adults “viewing

themselves and being viewed by others as competent literate members able to fully participate in classroom literacy events” (Moses & Kelly, 2017, p.394). Through this lens, students’

developing identities as writers is a negotiated and dynamic processes of co-construction (Gee, 2001; Kayi-Aydar, 2014) in which students are perpetually “becoming,” both through a culture that produces them as social subjects and through their individual responses as social subjects to this culture (Zembylas, 2003). Hence, the development of one’s writing and one’s writerly identity are considered inseparable from context (Cao, 2014); what counts as legitimate

participation is not autonomously determined, but instead, depends in part on existing structures of power that determine those cultural practices considered valuable and legitimate (Herrenkohl & Mertl, 2010; Lave, 1991; Street, 1993). This is not to suggest a structurally deterministic view of identity that does not make room for individual agency (Varghese, Morgan, Johnston, & Johnston, 2005); rather, in engaging her class in cultural practices that distributed power, Mrs.

79

Cruz fostered student agency, and cultivated positive writerly identities for students like Leo (Norton & Toohey, 2001).

Leo’s case contributes to current scholarship in several ways. First, this study is informed by both cognitive and sociocultural theories of learning and responds to the call for future research in the field of language learner strategies (LLS) to examine the links between these two paradigms (Cohen & Griffiths, 2015). In addition, research in the field has attended primarily to the positive literacy identity development of young learners (Compton-Lily, Papoi, Venegas, Hamman, & Schwabenbauer, 2017) and a paucity of research exists concerning what exactly constitutes effective teaching practices in writing instruction for ELs at the secondary levels (Fitzgerald, 2017; Goldenberg, 2008; Graham & Perin, 2007, p.27). Given that those